Your in your own world man. It's already been stated that the engines (3v 4.6's) are slightly underrated, probably by about 5 to 10 hp using the NORMAL driveline losses of 12% when on a dynojet.

Awesome... only problem is that has nothing to do with the actual discussion.
Here, let's rescope - since it seems that the actual discussion is getting skewed with data points that don't have relevance.

Subjective: "V6 camaro dyno numbers are low"

Scoping: Initial review - They're spot on for the AF mix, tire size, temp, dyno type and miles on chassis @ 18% (automatic) loss. I would expect these numbers to be combined with other future pulls from other cars, in order to get a collection metrics from which conclusions can be drawn.

Contention: Car X only has 8% driveline loss... that is the "norm"

Resolution: We've already shown that this is not the case with any production vehicle, 8% is a totally fictitious number based on the flawed logic that BHP calculations from the manufacturer are a constant.

Rwhp numbers are used to compare with the horsepower claims of the manufacture (assuming we're talking about baseline pulls in a stock vehicle) in addition to calculating gains made by outside influences. This number can either be higher, or lower, than the manufacturer claims. In the examples posted, it's clear that the manufacture under-rated the power output of their engine in that specific chassis. It does NOT however illustrate, in any way shape or form, that the it was the driveline loss percentage that changes, rather than the initial evaluation of the bhp rating.

If we need to, we can illustrate the inverse of this rwhp calculation.... that is, listing engine HP calculation based on torque output delivered at the wheels. If car X put down 300rwhp, without making any assumptions about BHP... are you going to assume it:

-Has a "normal" loss of 8% - for a total of 324bhp
or
-Has a "normal" loss of ~15% for a total of 345bhp

Given the fact that there is *plenty* of historical data supporting average loss >8% and <22%, the larger number is going to be the most accurate rating based on the metrics given.

/Cliffs: We all bitch at each other, but yet the dyno numbers I posted haven't changed

Awesome... only problem is that has nothing to do with the actual discussion.
Here, let's rescope - since it seems that the actual discussion is getting skewed with data points that don't have relevance.

Subjective: "V6 camaro dyno numbers are low"

Scoping: Initial review - They're spot on for the AF mix, tire size, temp, dyno type and miles on chassis @ 18% (automatic) loss. I would expect these numbers to be combined with other future pulls from other cars, in order to get a collection metrics from which conclusions can be drawn.

Contention: Car X only has 8% driveline loss... that is the "norm"

Resolution: We've already shown that this is not the case with any production vehicle, 8% is a totally fictitious number based on the flawed logic that BHP calculations from the manufacturer are a constant.

Rwhp numbers are used to compare with the horsepower claims of the manufacture (assuming we're talking about baseline pulls in a stock vehicle) in addition to calculating gains made by outside influences. This number can either be higher, or lower, than the manufacturer claims. In the examples posted, it's clear that the manufacture under-rated the power output of their engine in that specific chassis. It does NOT however illustrate, in any way shape or form, that the it was the driveline loss percentage that changes, rather than the initial evaluation of the bhp rating.

If we need to, we can illustrate the inverse of this rwhp calculation.... that is, listing engine HP calculation based on torque output delivered at the wheels. If car X put down 300rwhp, without making any assumptions about BHP... are you going to assume it:

-Has a "normal" loss of 8% - for a total of 324bhp
or
-Has a "normal" loss of ~15% for a total of 345bhp

Given the fact that there is *plenty* of historical data supporting average loss >8% and <22%, the larger number is going to be the most accurate rating based on the metrics given.

/Cliffs: We all bitch at each other, but yet the dyno numbers I posted haven't changed

you're a lost cause. you're contradicting real world facts. there is obviously no talking to you. i'm done. if you cant accept real world facts there is no sense in even going back and forth.

Dyno numbers are...just that. Numbers. Its a whole different story on the track.

Rock on. So we've gone from discussing the metrics of dyno calculation to somehow getting stuck on mustang numbers (up until this point, it was 05-09 but what ever). I'm glad they're running low/mid 13's out of the box, and that ford actually gives decent gearing ratios (their track package is pretty slick). None of this has any bearing on the actual dyno numbers for the camaro chassis.... but it's all good.

My 99 GTS ran a 11.9 the 2nd day I had it, bone stock down to the original pilot sports and air filters. Good times... miss that car :(

you're a lost cause. you're contradicting real world facts. there is obviously no talking to you. i'm done. if you cant accept real world facts there is no sense in even going back and forth.

Sweet. If you end up buying an LS/LT, please add your numbers to the mix. Regardless of who says what when bantering back and forth, the end goal is still the same -- data collection on a new platform.

Magnaflow had a hard time getting above 300rwhp with an exhaust change... on a 2010 (315bhp rating and a much better factory tune), etc.

Again, no one is arguing what a motor can or can't do, rather that the correction method you are implying (8% as "normal") simply isn't accurate. If a S197 mustang was rocking 280RWHP, she'd turn a far better time than a low 14 in the quarter. In reality, the S197 mustang puts down around the low 250hp mark (fordmuscle pulled the same number) which falls directly in line with it's power readings.

Cheers!

That is your statement Maxx. I posted the track times because they are well beneath what you are stating here. There are quite a few more threads on other forums where people are running 13.5~13.7 with 3:31 gears and 3:55. So yes dyno numbers...blah blah blah. I am not going to jump into that convo, but I will still say, no matter what the dyno says, that is just a tuning tool. The track is what matters.

That is your statement Maxx. I posted the track times because they are well beneath what you are stating here. There are quite a few more threads on other forums where people are running 13.5~13.7 with 3:31 gears and 3:55. So yes dyno numbers...blah blah blah. I am not going to jump into that convo, but I will still say, no matter what the dyno says, that is just a tuning tool. The track is what matters.

I agree whole heartedly -- I've been saying that the dyno results were secondary to what the machine could actually produce on a track. I was under the impression that they (again,5 years ago when I was going to buy one) were in the very low 14's/high 13's -- apparently that isn't the case, and I'm actually *GLAD* they're faster than I thought they were. That reinforces the stance that ford put together a nice under-rated engine combo...but it's still a far cry from some magical <9% loss number. That was my whole problem here... the number cruncher in me couldn't let that one slide

If anyone else has an LS/LT (especially when the 6spds hit!) *please* get it up on the rollers or on the track I've got to try and get up to the rock here soon for some shakedown passes.

I've been following the whole flippin thread. It diverged into the Mustang v8 numbers when this post was made by fdjizm:

He started this threadjacking....

His logic was as follows:
----
Mustang is rated at 300bhp
Plants the rollers at 280rwhp

Obviously the 304hp camaro should be higher!

Failure point in the logic structure:
------
300bhp mustang is not actually 300bhp, as proven (a few times now) to be higher based on pulls. The camaro on the other hand is *certified* at 304hp.
Hugh difference when trying to use something that is variable as a known constant vs. a solid known constant...

Good threadjack though. Like I said, in the end... I'm just posting up what I find as I go through this chassis. The only place to go is up from my initial numbers

His logic was as follows:
----
Mustang is rated at 300bhp
Plants the rollers at 280rwhp

Obviously the 304hp camaro should be higher!

Failure point in the logic structure:
------
300bhp mustang is not actually 300bhp, as proven (a few times now) to be higher based on pulls. The camaro on the other hand is *certified* at 304hp.
Hugh difference when trying to use something that is variable as a known constant vs. a solid known constant...

Good threadjack though. Like I said, in the end... I'm just posting up what I find as I go through this chassis. The only place to go is up from my initial numbers

had "someone" accepted reality there would have been no conversation about the mustang. i provided real facts in real world situations and real dyno numbers he failed to accept and pretended mustang owners manipulated numbers and 1/4 mile times. something had to be corrected.

he seems like a very educated man for him to say people are making up dyno numbers and mustangs run low 14's is a bit surprising. when they clearly dont. i dont see how people are perfectly content with believing false information.

had "someone" accepted reality there would have been no conversation about the mustang.

Accepted what? Your 8% number was complete bogus, it's been shown over and over and over again. Your failure to understand the mathematical concepts behind how all this works is not my problem. If you construe my trying to explain to your how your math didn't work vs. the numbers posted as "pretending", then by all means roll with that concept. I did call into question some of their numbers... based on 300bhp being an certified rating (which it isn't) and the low 14 quarter (whcih it isn't either). Pretty easy to see how the metrics don't line up, thus my frustration... well, easy for me to see anyway LOL

I'm having the mods clean up the thread to get all the banteer - this needs to remain a thread about the numbers posted.

So a V6 is able to make 220 tq on a Stang dyno. Hmmm...so under a boosted app, how much improvement could we see hhere with those numbers. I would be interested in seeing what TQ could be had out of this engine....

In the end, TQ is what win races..HP is what you lie to your friends about.

So a V6 is able to make 220 tq on a Stang dyno. Hmmm...so under a boosted app, how much improvement could we see hhere with those numbers. I would be interested in seeing what TQ could be had out of this engine....

In the end, TQ is what win races..HP is what you lie to your friends about.

A man after my own heart!

The engine is being choked down pretty hard just looking at the graph. It may still be part of the break-in cycle.

fdjizm, I think you're confused man. MadMaxx is not implying that Mustangs don't make good horsepower. He's stating they make MORE horsepower than what they are rated. He's merely saying that YOUR logic, that Mustangs make the power they do because they only lose 8% through parasitic losses, is BOGUS. Because it IS. You are arguing over nothing.

Mustangs came underrated from the factory.
4th Gen F-bodies came underrated from the factory.
5th gen Camaros did NOT come underrated from the factory.

WHAT THE HELL ELSE IS THERE TO ARGUE ABOUT? Nothing! Let's just drop it! Because either way, you get wade through all the B.S., you're BOTH arguing that Mustangs make more power than what they should. You, fdjizm, are just making your argument coming from a different (and wrong) direction. I'm not trying to be mean here man, but really you're getting way too pissed off about nothing. We are all agreeing these Mustangs came from the factory making more power than what they are rated. So let's drop it so we can get back to talking about the FIRST EVER V-6 being on a dyno and the planned modifications for it!

Back to the thread topic, can't wait to see what this engine can do MadMaxx!

MadMaxx, fdjizm please stop bickering. Create a new thread to discuss drive line losses if you want to continue your discussion, but lets keep this thread clean alright?

__________________

Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather __________________

Erm..were back on topic actually...116# Anywho, what is choking it down ? I thought that the new V6 breath pretty well...they do come with dual exhaust from the factory correct ? It could be a break in...but I guess it depends on just how bogged it is.